| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Arthur Dent
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Location: Kochu whirld
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:49 pm Post subject: Airport body scanners to begin operation this month |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said Thursday that it will start operating full body scanners at four airports operating international flights from the middle of this month, ignoring concerns over possible privacy issues.
-------------------------------------------
"Due to possible concerns over the invasion of privacy, we will only scan passengers suspected of posing a threat to other travelers and airplanes, and those who are blacklisted or did not pass the initial security procedure."
He also said the security personnel guiding the passenger through the scanner won't be able to see the scanned image. |
Many potential issues here involving health, discrimination and privacy.
But no one ever mentions dignity. This is the true loss for all of us.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/07/117_68639.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't really imagine some scanner in a room getting thrills from glancing at radiographed images of thousands of anonymous bodies every day. Sure you can possibly make out the vague outilne of a persons genitals..but its hardly pornography.
Dignity or death? I think I'll opt for enhanced security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Dent
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Location: Kochu whirld
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
However, the commission said screeners can see the shape of sexual organs of men and women through the scanner, as well as cosmetic implants and other artificial objects inserted into a human body, adding there is no legal basis for its adoption.
|
This is the privacy that Koreans and others may be concerned about. They counter that the person escorting the "scannee" will not be the person observing the scan result. Comforting I am sure. More detachedness. I agree that it is difficult to imagine this type of scan as arousing in any way. But it is certainly invasive.
Now this article states that "we will only scan passengers suspected of posing a threat to other travelers and airplanes, and those who are blacklisted or did not pass the initial security procedure." so initially at least, only those who are considered a threat will be scanned.
What protection will be afforded those who refuse? If you do refuse, they are of course able to refuse you entry in to the country. Great.
But the dignity I refer to is more than this. It is the freedom to travel without each of us being considered a threat. It is the increased paranoia. It is the increased lack of trust. I understand that many consider this to be an intangible and even ephemeral aspect. Certainly being practical has its merits - I don't deny that. However, there are times when it is necessary to consider whether or not the practical will have the intended effect.
This is how those who threaten us will win.
Julius wrote:
| Quote: |
| Dignity or death? I think I'll opt for enhanced security. |
I can certainly understand your response, but this acceptance merely undermines our way of life. It is subtle, and slow, but it has its effect. I would suggest you consider this a little more deeply.
Personally, it is a dignified life for me - or none. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sheriffadam
Joined: 10 May 2010
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Arthur Dent"]
| Quote: |
Personally, it is a dignified life for me - or none. |
dignified life = stay at home?
But I know what you're getting at, the slow chipping away of everyones rights, hmmmm not good  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Dent
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Location: Kochu whirld
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
sheriffadam wrote:
| Quote: |
| dignified life = stay at home? |
Ha ha, exactly what I was thinking. Ruefully.
We shouldn't forget that this is also a consequence of mass travel. Very difficult to handle this many people traveling all around the world. No one wants to be caught red-faced because they didn't do something......
The economics of this as well. There are many facets to these issues. I would not discount a discussion/consideration of all of them.
I'm not considering rights in the traditional sense perhaps, but rather a collective sense of dignity as a species. Rights are often very clearly defined out of legal necessity. But how do we define dignity? I'm not saying there aren't legal definitions, but how well do they translate into reality? Then we get into the morass of differing cultures, religion, perception and politics....
It is a very difficult thing to put into words, especially on message boards. Without the immediacy of presence. Even then....
Travel (within borders, outside the context of officialdom) affords its own loss of dignity at times, however these are generally more fun and certainly more instructive, but the constant justification of oneself by means such as this is dehumanizing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I understand your point, Arthur, and I think it's fairly reasonable. I also think that we aren't actually faced with an actual "dignity or death" dichotomy, which is what I find most absurd about this situation. Even with very little security, the overwhelming majority of airplane flights aren't going to be facing suicide bombers or plane hijackers, especially with reinforced cockpit doors which remain locked for the entire flight. From a statistical point of view our gain in security is essentially zero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthur Dent
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Location: Kochu whirld
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I understand your point, Arthur, and I think it's fairly reasonable. I also think that we aren't actually faced with an actual "dignity or death" dichotomy, which is what I find most absurd about this situation. Even with very little security, the overwhelming majority of airplane flights aren't going to be facing suicide bombers or plane hijackers, especially with reinforced cockpit doors which remain locked for the entire flight. From a statistical point of view our gain in security is essentially zero. |
I meant to make that point as well, thanks for making it for me. Also nice to know I'm not alone in my views. Air travel is probably still the safest part of travel, though it may well be the most annoying and intrusive. I've done a fair bit of traveling since the the late 80's and always found it ironic that the focus is so often on the flight when it comes to security.
When something does happen, it gets the press though doesn't it? Who has ever seen an article which read, "A plane carrying 239 people took off and landed safely 9 hours later. All aboard had a nice vacation/work/visit with family and returned several ----- later on a similarly uneventful flight. This was the 9,032,060 such incident in recorded flight history in the last 50 years."
"See side bar for details."
I've encountered more dangerous situations - though perhaps not entirely extreme - once in country than I have on the flight. Having worked at some fairly dangerous jobs, on a day to day basis, I am also perhaps better equipped mentally (not saying I am "Danger Bill" or anything) for dealing with them, and can accept a certain degree of risk as both part of life and as an experience worth having. The average traveler (but what is average?) may view things differently. Seems some need to get out a little more.
I guess I would have to say that I view these precautions as a little cowardly on our part given what I have seen experienced by others in their daily lives in poorer or less developed nations. Our acceptance of them - despite the ease of their use - lessens my respect for our institutions and our culture. We aren't talking about using a seat belt here after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
When I am flying around Canada, or from Canada to the US, I have always been given the choice of a body scan or a full search. I dislike both options but pick the full search.
| Quote: |
| From a statistical point of view our gain in security is essentially zero. |
Yes, exactly. I'd like to know who produces the scanners and what relationships exist with the national security apparatus. I read something about this a while back but can't remember the details. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaESLbound
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Location: Truck Stop Missouri
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Does Korea use it's x-ray machines? I was just waved on through as if I were a special celebrity who is exempt from such contraband finding measures. I'm betting these new expensive American machines won't be used in most instances. Only if you are on a list no one wants to be on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder what these scans look like. I've read two amusing articles about this, but can't remember where. One was about an airport worker, in Texas I think, who went through as part of a training exercise and then filed a law suit or something like that because he was teased about his size. Another one talked about how it couldn't see things hidden in rolls of fat, so many Americans would make ideal drug mules/ terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I wonder what these scans look like. I've read two amusing articles about this, but can't remember where. One was about an airport worker, in Texas I think, who went through as part of a training exercise and then filed a law suit or something like that because he was teased about his size. Another one talked about how it couldn't see things hidden in rolls of fat, so many Americans would make ideal drug mules/ terrorists. |
The small dick incident was @ MIA.
Here is an example of what is produced:
http://i.livescience.com/images/090401-scan-image-02.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| I can't really imagine some scanner in a room getting thrills from glancing at radiographed images of thousands of anonymous bodies every day. Sure you can possibly make out the vague outilne of a persons genitals..but its hardly pornography. |
But in the case of children it is, as courts have ruled.
| NYU Law Professor Amy Adler, in The Perverse Law of Child Pornography from Columbia Law Review wrote: |
| The same critic who recognized that a �mom� could have taken the photo by accident pointed to the following evidence to show that this picture was not an accident at all, that it was child pornography: �If the outline of the little boys� genitals can be seen in a photograph taken by a professional photographer, that�s not an accident,� he said. |
I'd support this if those doing the scanning were prosecuted for production of kiddy porn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThingsComeAround
Joined: 07 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
Dignity or death? I think I'll opt for enhanced security. |
Enhanced security from what? What they need is more customer protection from airline security guards w/ high school diplomas and more professional Customs agents  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mariella713
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why don't they just make people walk through security naked with just leaves to cover the private regions...would save a lot of time & money wasted on these body scanners. What is seen cannot be unseen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100713/1abodyscans13_st.art.htm
| Quote: |
Backlash grows vs. full-body scanners
Fliers worry about privacy, health risks
Opposition to new full-body imaging machines to screen passengers and the government's deployment of them at most major airports is growing. |
They can oppose all they want. It doesn't matter.
Are the scanners going to be mandatory for domestic flights in Canada? I've seen conflicting information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
